Over the past few weeks, I’ve been diving deeper into my own philosophy of coaching. Throughout recent years, I’ve delved into ecological dynamics and constraint-led coaching, gradually developing my unique perspective on these approaches on the court.

What captivates me about these methodologies is their inherent individuality; everyone brings their own style, their own interpretation—it’s genuinely non-linear.

Initially, my approach was about setting up ‘practices,’ enabling players to explore various solutions to problems presented.

Recently, I’ve taken a deeper dive. It’s no longer just about setting up the game and playing; it’s about assisting players in interacting with their environment.

Through continuous reading, listening, and firsthand experiences with perception-action, I’ve begun to consider how players perceive their surroundings.

In the past, when a player made a mistake, I would immediately offer a solution. After all, that was my job, right?

Now, I see it differently:

• I view errors from a completely different perspective than the player.
• My level of experience differs from theirs.
• I don’t experience the player’s emotions.
• My mentality during play might be more aggressive, whereas the player might be calmer.

Hence, my solutions may not be as fitting as I once believed, given our distinct perceptions.

I might have opinions on potential solutions, but their effectiveness is never certain.

This realization has led me to what I now refer to as ‘coaching for interaction,’ not just ‘coaching for action.’ It’s about aiding players in taking measures that lead to success.

But what influences players’ decision-making? Why do they opt for one tactic over another? What prompts a late move on one occasion but an early one on another?

Here’s my theory:

Engagement and interaction with the environment are crucial.

Are they focused, calm, and prepared? If not, their actions will likely be compromised.

Their behavior and interaction with the environment are vital. Do they adapt to the ball’s variability? To changes in their opponent’s strategy? Perhaps last game, their opponent was error-prone, but now they’ve stabilized and are making more successful shots. The weather has shifted too—from sunshine to dark clouds and rain.

How well does my player adapt and respond to these changes?

In the dynamic setting of a tennis match, ‘coaching for action’ seems rather limited.

Thus, my focus has shifted to ‘coaching for interaction.’ Can I help the player attune to environmental changes? Can they pick up on perceptual cues to make better decisions?

This approach seems far more beneficial than prescribing actions or movements that may not be necessary.

Now, I pose questions like:

• What did you notice that influenced your decision?
• What made you choose that particular shot?
• Were there other options or opportunities you considered?
• If you could replay that moment, would you try something different?

Encouraging players to observe, emerge, and utilize perception cues is a new avenue I’m exploring and will discuss more in future posts.

However, it’s become increasingly clear that rather than viewing the game through my lens as an expert, it’s more important than ever to see it through the lens that truly matters—the player’s.